anon: cover ala ian a.

[anon]

i started a new thread because i am late to the party and need lots of attention

i know our host agrees with those who hold that his cover betting is far too costly. in fact the score of his game is not within the parameters of the great and powerful don.

in fact, most counters would NEVER have considered giving so much away, before burning the tables.

this is the EXACT reason it was a great gambit. the personality composition of counters has not changed much since turning the tables was written. we tend to be precise, mathematical, analytical, (dare i say anal), (and for want of a better word) geeks.

now here comes ian a. outgoing, wild, action junkie.

profiling is not restricted to the police. pit critters are just the cops of the casinos. they pidgeon hole every person they see instantly and have a hard time changing that opinion. they see thousands of faces and know most of them fall into a few categories. in general they are correct, so they persist in this behavior.

i adopted ian's ultimate gambit as soon as i read burning the tables. in fact with the help of the author i was able to add a few wrinkles.

it worked remarkably well, for about 2 years. by that time the ultimate gambit was well known by the pit critters and it became harder to play. it became known because other high stakes players were using it and the critters can read.

imagine you were the only counter in the world playing this way. could the critters spot you? it would take a critter with a remarkable ability to think as an individual, to think,(please forgive my use of this worn out phrase), outside the box, if you will, to catch this counter.

one more analogy. in poker, if you fold every hand unless you have the mortal nuts, then bet aggressively, you will not lose but you won't get a lot of action. if you are splashing around every pot, you get the action.

you have to give action to get action. this is the key to his style and it would work well today if he had not shared it with all of us.

in the immortal words of our host

good luck and good cards

the real anon

[Don Schlesinger]

I agreed with just about everything you wrote, until I came to this:

> It became known because other high stakes players were using it and the critters can read.

You lost me on that last remark! :-)

Don

[Mr.X]

I haven't read Jethro's-er, I mean Ian's-book in years, and it's inaccessible right now, so I may be wrong on a few details. That being said...
I agree it's not a bad idea to present an anti-sterotype profile. Obviously, one does not want the casino to think you are an advantage player. One way of doing this is to, mathematically, NOT BE AN ADVANTAGE PLAYER!! I'm afraid that's what Ian does, if you take all of his advice literally. He's like the proverbial salesman who loses money on every sale, but makes it up in volume.
I think we all agree that some of his techniques, used occasionally, have some merit, especially for very high stakes players. But as I recall, Ian gives up way to much by- (and I want to emphasize the advantage tecnique here is 1-2 deck card counting only)
1. Not increasing bets in HH games on plus counts half of the time
2. Not decrereasing bets in HH games on negative counts half the time
3.Max increase of 2X when you DO increase bets
4. Way, way, way overtipping
5. Unnecessary, silly, overly-costly intentional misplays.
I do some of the above, on selected, rare situations. And for high stakes shoe players, one may do them even more. But doing all 5 the way Ian suggests, combined with the negative 0.5% or more BS disadvantage one starts out with most of the time, I submit that the player has NEGATIVE EV.

[Mr.X]

One other rant- imo,many authors, including Ian, make a big error when giving camoflague advice. Ian, especially, implies that once you fool one boss, you are home free. I strongly disagree. An advantage player's reputation and longevity is only as strong as his WEAKEST link, not his strongest. If you spend a lot of EV trying to fool a floorman, you cannot play aggresively when he's not around- you still have to worry about other pit critters, and the camera. Ian implied he was relatively safe from barring once he fooled ONE pit boss. I strongly disagree.
Also, the posting sequence may seem like I'm replying or disagreeing to Don. I'm not, I'm replying to Anon. And I want to emphasize I agree with much of what Anon says, he made some very valuable points. The basic point of my rant is-following Ian's advice literally will give you negative EV.
Happy Easter to all, and thanks to Don for the web's best BJ thread (at least it is when I'm not ranting about Ian).

[anon]

??Mr X is Dennis Miller??

but seriously folks...

while i understand your concern that the game ian a. is advocating is a negative expectancy game i believe our humble host and his former collaborator s.wong ran(t) the numbers and found in fact it was a winner.

i dont have the numbers handy but i think it was 2 units ev/100 with 54 unit sd. i really should know it by heart, but i don't and the book is in the garage right now and i am on baby duty so i can't(oops i mentioned another evil enemy of this domain) get it right now.

none the less your point about fooling only one critter is well taken. i believe ian suggested acting as if everything you do, including craps, is on the tape and WILL be reviewed.

finally, racer x, it is my understanding that ian a. has taken more $ from the casinos than any other individual (not team). we are not even counting the goofy comps, airfare, etc etc etc.

so, we can conclude that the game he offers is both posative expectancy and longevity extending. it is also a very violent ride vis a vis other styles, for instance the one taught to me by our esteemed host.

good luck and good cards

anon (the real)

[anon]

[Don Schlesinger]

I was generally skeptical about Ian's UG when it was published, because, as you mention, the DI, SCORE, or ev/SD (however you choose to rate games and approaches to winning money) was actually rather poor.

What readers have to understand is that Ian wasn't advocating this methodology for all players; rather, he was explaining how he manages to play for fantastically high stakes, all over the world, and get away with it -- all the while winning very large sums of money.

If you're an "average Joe," the UG is overkill. If you're Ian Andersen (and not many are!), he's convinced it was what was necesaary to win without being kicked out.

Many wear barrings as badges of courage. Ian and I never cared for the idea. To each his own.

Don

[Double21]

For what it's worth, on page 105 of his latest masterpiece he says his UG win rate is $207 (per hour/per $100 unit), SD $5,586 and a return of .62%. Sometimes we get focused on the wrong statistic--his win rate per hour of $207 is terrific even if the percentage is only .62%. What I don't recall in this book, however, is his bankroll and ROR for the UG style of play. Anyone know?

[Don Schlesinger]

> For what it's worth, on page 105 of his
> latest masterpiece he says his UG win rate
> is $207 (per hour/per $100 unit), SD $5,586
> and a return of .62%. Sometimes we get
> focused on the wrong statistic--his win rate
> per hour of $207 is terrific even if the
> percentage is only .62%.

No, I'm sorry to disagree here. You need to consider risk all the time, not just EV. If I told you that the SCORE (or, more correctly, the c-SCORE, or the DI squared) of the game you just described is 13.73, would you still call that "terrific"?

The point is that winning "only" $207 per hour, while taking on $5,586 worth of SD is really a vile tradeoff -- unless they won't let you play any other way!

Don

[98%]

> finally, racer x, it is my understanding
> that ian a. has taken more $ from the
> casinos than any other individual (not
> team). we are not even counting the goofy
> comps, airfare, etc etc etc.

How can someone make this claim? While I know nothing of his lifetime win, I doubt the validity of this claim. I imagine someone along the lines of a Dustin Marks or even a total unknown (at least to the masses of players and luminaries) who has not published his tricks of the trade or perhaps even a crooked casino or shift manager who has figured out a way to nick a black chip here and there could rank far beyond what a high-stakes counter could pull off. Does anyone know the dollar amount Ian A. claims to have won?

[anon]

he did not make this claim.

it was discussed among well known pros at some internet forum.

i belive george c., sw and perhaps the donald were involved

[Don Schlesinger]

> it was discussed among well known pros at
> some internet forum.

> i belive george c., sw and perhaps the
> donald were involved

I don't remember such a discussion, but I do know some pretty high-stakes team players who have surely won more than Ian. But, again, he operated alone his whole life.

Don

[Mr.X]

> ??Mr X is Dennis Miller??

Hey, after ABC fired me for John Madden, all I do is spend my time reading Don's BJ thread.

> while i understand your concern that the
> game ian a. is advocating is a negative
> expectancy game i believe our humble host
> and his former collaborator s.wong ran(t)
> the numbers and found in fact it was a
> winner.

> i dont have the numbers handy but i think
> it was 2 units ev/100 with 54 unit sd.

I find that fascinating. However, I am skeptical of the criteria used to come up with a 2% net EV using strict Ian tecniques. Maybe, MAYBE if it was a superb, pristine 1 on 1, 8 round, massive penetration game, Ian would get the money. But in the real world of 2 or 3 rounds in a single, a 1-4 spread yields maybe 1-2 units of EV/hour. Then, using Ian tactics-
1. The big restrictions on increasing bets in + counts and decreasing in - counts cuts the EV in half, to 1/2-1 unit.
2. His frequent,paranoid camoflague intentional misplays loses the rest of the EV
3. His massive toking to look like an average whale drops you to EV of -4 or -5 units per hour.
By my calculations, it's not even close. And large bets will only mean a larger dollar -EV.
Some of his tactics, under some conditions, I can go along with. And great 1 on 1 games may be vulnerable. But for most players, most of the time, I think playing ala Ian is not even close to positive EV.